Advice to students and young professionals when you don't like a critique of your work

I've been thinking hard about whether to share what follows.  I've finally decided to do so now, at the start of the fall semester, as a form of advice to students and young professionals.  The advice is actually quite simple:  Learning to write well requires you to be open to honest criticism.  It is all right if you don't like how a professor or someone else responds to your writing, but try to put aside your personal feelings and draw whatever value you can from someone who has taken the time and made an effort to be helpful to you. Also, be gracious.

The background is as follows.  A junior faculty member at a medical school recently asked me to read and critique a book s/he had published.  I am often asked by students and other young professionals to do this, and I am always happy to pitch in, in the hope of being helpful during the formative stages of their careers.

In this case, I felt that the book was not very good. It's not that the ideas it contained were off base. Rather, the writing wasn't persuasive and clear.  I wanted to be honest in my critique, but I also wanted to do my best to make the review a good learning experience.  So, I actually consulted with a number of senior academic faculty members to get their advice on how I should approach the task.  What I wrote is what follows--but then stay tuned for the author's response, and my rejoinder.

Here's my email to the author, with items changed to protect his/her identity:

Thanks so much for sending me your book.  I think it is a great concept and, of course, timely. You asked for feedback, so here goes:

I've seen many instances, like this, where the author has a lot of good things to say, supported by powerful stories.  The problem that occurs is that your own depth of knowledge and understanding of the issues gets in the way of presenting them to readers who are not as attuned as you to the issues.  Why?  In short, because you put in too much, and it is overwhelming.

I always used to tell my students that everything you write should be considered an advocacy document.  You are trying to persuade the reader that your stories are apt and compelling, and the generalizable lessons you draw from those stories are equally apt and compelling. It is very, very difficult to do this when you are so close to the subject.

So my short answer to your feedback request is that the book could have used a major dose of editing, preferably by someone who was not familiar with the topic.  Only that kind of detached observer can tell you where you have done well and where things need to be reworked.  For example, a story might be compelling to you because you experienced it; but in the telling the power does not come through.  It might be the story itself, and it might be how it is told.  

There is also a serious need to separate your personal journey and feelings from a more detached presentation of the evidence you bring to bear in making your points. The reader will know that it is personal--after all, you wrote the book.  But if each story is made too personal, it loses its power as a potentially generalizable example.

Beyond the substance, the design and presentation of the paragraphs and other graphical issues needs major work.  The text comes across as overly dense.  Something about the font size and margins and line spacing and indentation is just wrong--making the book much harder to read.  The publisher should have provided you with better graphic arts support.  

These are general observations.  I could best illustrate them to you if we went through several pages and chapters of the book.  I'd welcome the chance to do that next time I am in your vicinity.  

I want to close with both encouragement and a warning. [Name,] you have the potential to make a big difference in this field because of your commitment to the issues and sound judgment and passion.  But, if you hope to advance in the academic world, your finished writing products need to reach a higher level.  That's certainly achievable, but it will take some work and help.

With fond regards,

Paul

--

And now the author's reponse: 

Dear Paul,

Thank you for taking time to send your feedback. I will let my current work (as well as future career work) answer your email but to be very honest, I am disappointed by your email. Of course not because you didn’t like the book, the writing style or the way I choose to generate knowledge — it’s normal that a personal book will evoke different personal responses. What you find problematic has been a guide for others.

What disappoints me is the rather linear logic you used to develop and organize your arguments.  I shared your email with my mentors, both whom are incredibly well respected and successful palliative medicine physicians in two different settings, and they were underwhelmed (and actually confused) by the email's lack of understanding of and sensitivity towards the complexity of clinical life, aging and policy issues, and health care settings in general, particularly in the context of advanced illness. They were also taken back and concerned by the email’s lack of understanding around systems (ED and hospice), system theory, qualitative methods, and communication theory. 

My own voice will continue to develop, and my mentors and I are on a mission to make a difference through understanding, learning and change, rather than endless critique and dismissal of differing points of view and voices that are always in motion.

Best of luck,

--

To which I felt compelled to reply: 

To be absolutely clear, [name], my comments were not in the least "an endless critique and dismissal of differing points of view and voices that are always in motion."  You asked for an honest critique of your writing, which is simply what I offered.  If you had just wanted encomiums, you needn't have asked.  This was not a critique of your ideas.  I'm sorry either I did not make that clear, or you did not understand.  I offered to illustrate the points to you in detail and in person, but you have chosen to cast aside that offer.  

Your comment about my lack of "understanding of and sensitivity towards the complexity of clinical life, aging and policy issues, and health care settings in general, particularly in the context of advanced illness" is off base.  You know nothing about my experience or knowledge of those issues.  Ditto for my knowledge of system theory and the like. My last bit of advice to you, for future correspondence with others, is that you do little in offering a persuasive retort by attacking the supposed knowledge and experience of the reviewer.  

I'm so pleased you will continue in your efforts to bring greater light to this important field, and I wish you the best.

Sincerely,